Talk:HMS Acasta (H09)

HMS Acasta (H09) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 27, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Acasta (H09) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The General Characteristics Armament seems to describe late-war conversions of other members of the A-class. HMS Acasta, sunk in 1940 would not have carried Hedgehog, introduced in 1942. Probably the armament in 1940 would be the same as for HMS Ardent.96.54.53.165 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March missing from the Bibliography

March (presumably his British Destroyers 1892–1953) is cited in the article but not listed in the bibliography.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thanks for letting me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same issue is in some of the other A-class destroyer articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Standard Destroyers of the 1930s - extensive use as a reference

Does this book, only a single page really contain all the cite details as per this article? I'm not saying it's false but it's not clear which sentences are actually mentioned and cited, so I've made the assumption the reference at the end of the paragraph does this - but then there is an awful lot cited to just page 17 of this book. Surely there are other numerous records (Official War History, etc.) which can be cited in more depth to qualify this is a GA? At the moment, I wouldn't have the normal confidence in GA reading this as an accurate account of it's war history which is to be expected for a GA. Aeonx (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English covers each destroyer's history in a few pages, although the peacetime portion is often very sparse as there's often not much notable activity happening then. The citation covers the entire paragraph; if I'd used other sources I'd have listed them. The GA criteria is: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]